A failure should tell us what needs to improve.
FromWho’s wrong→ToWhy it failed
Most dispute systems end with a verdict. This one adds a question: why? A participant can fail because they were unwilling or because they were unable, and those call for different responses. For those who want to do better, practical support comes first, and improvement is shown rather than declared.
The delays had a cause
Some months after Kavita’s order, Imran’s workshop has a run of late dispatches. Customers are frustrated, and disputes are piling up. The resolutions find that the delays were genuine and that the fault was his.
The network asks one more question: why? The answer is that he tracks his stock on paper and runs out of material without warning, which is also what made Kavita’s part two days late. He is offered a simple inventory tool and a short training session. Over the next hundred orders his late dispatches fall from 8% to 2% illustrative.
Unwilling or unable?
A participant can fail for very different reasons.
Unwilling: they could have delivered, but chose not to. That calls for enforcement. Unable: they wanted to deliver, but lacked knowledge, technology, processes, working capital, documentation or an understanding of how the network works. That calls for support.
Treating the two the same way is unfair and wasteful. Many of the participants most likely to struggle are small businesses that are new to digital commerce: artisans, local service providers and neighbourhood sellers. We expect this to be so, and the pilot would test it.
Diagnose, intervene, improve, verify
A diagnosis after resolution. What failed, why, what capability was missing, and can it be built?
Support matched to the gap. Training, process templates, software tools, workflow automation, documentation help, financial guidance, quality systems, compliance support, onboarding and mentoring.
A clear message. Not “you failed,” but: here is what went wrong, why it happened and what would help you do better.
Verified improvement. Improvement is not declared. It is demonstrated across real transactions, and the record shows it (Shift 7).
Go deeper
Matching support to the cause
illustrative Constructed to explain the idea, not data.
| What the diagnosis finds | Support that might help |
|---|---|
| Stock tracked on paper; materials run out | A simple inventory tool and a short training session |
| Specifications misunderstood | A checklist for confirming the specification before work starts |
| Not enough working capital to buy material | Financial guidance, or staged payments (Shift 2) |
| Missing invoices or documents | Help with documentation |
Support and enforcement, side by side
Enforcement already has a ladder. ONDC’s 2022 consultation paper proposed penalties running from warnings through suspension to termination, decided by an independent disciplinary body[1]. It also proposed that technology service providers offer “Cataloguing as a Service” to help small retailers build good catalogues[1], an early example of support built into the network. This shift adds a second path beside the ladder: help for those who want to do better.
Platforms have long used ratings, warnings and removals to protect buyers from unreliable sellers, and they have made commerce safer for millions. Open networks can keep that protection and add a way back.
Who pays for support
We expect a mix. The network could fund shared learning and tools from its fees. Public programmes that support small businesses could take part. Specialist providers could offer tools and services, some free and some paid. We haven’t tested any of these, and the cost of support has to be repaid in fewer disputes and more reliable sellers, or it won’t last.
Getting it right
Enforcement still exists. Deliberate misconduct is dealt with firmly. Support is for those who want to improve.
Voluntary and respectful. Help is offered, never imposed.
Measured honestly. Recovery is recognised only when real performance proves it.
What could go wrong
- Support that feels like an audit.A diagnosis that reads as inspection will be refused by the people who need it most.
- Misclassification.Deciding whether someone was unwilling or unable is a judgment, and it can be wrong.
- Cost.Support has to pay for itself, in fewer disputes, better sellers or both.
- Steering.Tools offered by providers linked to the network could narrow a seller’s choices.
How we’d test it
Offer support to sellers with repeated, verified delivery problems in one category.
- The test
- Capability support
- What we would measure
- Performance before and after, the share of sellers who take support up, and whether improvements last.
- What would end the idea
- Few sellers take it up, or the improvement fades within a quarter.
Few sellers take the offer, or the improvement doesn’t last.
Sources
- [1]ONDC, Building Trust in the ONDC Network: Consultation Paper (29 September 2022), sections 4.7.2 to 4.8Checked; proposals for comment, not adopted policy
Spotted a source we missed or a rule we misread? Tell us what we got wrong.
If a seller can recover, the record should be able to show it.